Allahabad High Court
Ghan Shyam Maurya vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others on 19 June, 2015
Bench: Manoj Kumar Gupta
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 4
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 35336 of 2015
Petitioner :- Ghan Shyam Maurya
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Vidya Sagar
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ajay Kumar
Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Gupta,J.
The petitioner has approached this Court with the following reliefs: -
"(a) To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus be issued for one seat/post of Sub-Ordinate Agriculture Service Grade - III (Technical Assistant Group -C) to be kept reserve in favour of the petitioner candidate till the final out come of the present writ petition pending before this Hon'ble Court.
(b) To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent authorities to keep the select list and its effect and operation at abeyance till the finalization of the present petition.
(c) To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing respondent No. 2 and 4 to render information to the petitioner in pursuance to his RTI Application dated 02/03.06.2015 within a short stipulated period of time as fixed by this Hon'ble Court."
A perusal of the reliefs claimed would show that the relief (a) and (b) are in the nature of interim reliefs to be granted to the petitioner till the writ is pending.
By the third relief, the petitioner has sought intervention of this Court in getting information sought by the petitioner under Right to Information Act, 2005 by application dated 2/3 June 2015. Copy of the said application has been filed as Annexure 3 to the writ petition. A perusal of the said application goes to show that the petitioner had sought various information regarding the cut-off merit and other details regarding the selection made by the U.P. Public Service Commission for appointment on the post of sub-ordinate Agriculture Service Grade III (Technical Assistant Group C). According to the petitioner, the U.P. Public Service Commission has issued a fresh Notification on 21 May 2015 whereby it is notified that the result of the said examination was declared on 21 May 2015. Out of the total application forms of 32,649 only 26,650 candidates appeared in the examination. It further states that in between 27 August 2014 and 2 May 2015, 20,586 candidates were interviewed. As against 6,628 vacancies as many as 6,599 candidates have been declared successful. The entire information in this regard has been pasted on the notice board of the Commission and is also available on the official website Http//uppsc.nic.in. It further mentions that other relevant information regarding the number obtained by the candidates and the cut-off of each category are also available on the official website. Consequently, separate applications seeking information in that regard shall not be entertained.
The grievance of the petitioner is that in view of the aforesaid Notification, the U.P. Public Service Commission is refusing to reply to the application given by the petitioner under the Right to Information Act.
Admittedly, the result has been declared and according to the fresh Notification issued by the U.P. Public Service Commission, all relevant information is available on its official website. In view of it, the Commission was of the opinion that furnishing of information to different applicants would be a cumbersome and onerous process and consequently it issued the Notification in question. The petitioner could well obtain the required information from the official website of the U.P. Public Service Commission. In case, the petitioner still feels aggrieved or certain information sought by him is not available on the official website, it is always open to him to again approach the Commission in that regard, specifying the information, which is not available on the official website. He also has the remedy of filing appeal before the State Information Commission under the provisions of Right to Information Act, 2005. In view of the above, I do not consider it appropriate to issue any writ, order or direction in exercise of power under Article 226 of the Constitution.
With these observations, the writ petition stands disposed of.
(Manoj Kumar Gupta, J.)
Order Date :- 19.6.2015
AM/-
